O r ig in a l a rtic le
Serologic celiac disease in patients with inflammatory bowel disease
Hamid Tavakkoli1, Saeid Haghdani2, Haiedeh Adilipour2, Hamed Daghaghzadeh1, Mohammad Minakari1, Peyman Adibi1, Khalil Ahmadi1, Mohammah Hasan Emami1,2
1Department of Gastroenterology, Alzahra University Hospital, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran. 2Poursina Hakim Research Institute, Isfahan, Iran
Background: There is an association of celiac disease (CD) with several gastrointestinal illnesses. We aimed to determine the prevalence of CD in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) to evaluate the value of the routine serological tests for CD in these patients. Materials and Methods: patients with IBD underwent screening test for CD. The screening test was based on IgA anti-tTG antibody evaluated by ELISA method and IgA EMA (endomysial antibody) measured by the indirect immunofluorescence method. Fisher exact and chi-square and t tests were used for data analysis. Results: the study was conducted on 100 patients, with a mean age of 34.74 ± 12.03 (SD) years. The mean simplified Crohn’s disease activity index was 90 ± 17 (SE) and the mean colitis activity index was 3.46± 0.96 (SE). Seventeen patients (17%) had IgA anti-tTG antibody levels above the cutoff point (> 20). Thirty-two patients were positive for IgA EMA. IgA EMA was positive in nine IgA anti-tTG positive patients (three patients with Crohn’s Disease and six ones with ulcerative colitis). Then, the prevalence of serologic CD was 9% that was higher than that of general population.
A significant correlation was found between the results of IgA EMA and those of IgA anti-tTG (P=0.001) whereas Fisher exact test revealed significant difference between frequency distribution of positive and negative results of IgA EMA and IgA anti-tTG in patients with ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease (P=0). Conclusion: the prevalence of serologic CD in general population in Iran has been reported to be 0.6–0.96%. Then, its prevalence in our sample size was about ten times more than that in general population.
Key words: Celiac Disease, Inflammatory Bowel Disease
INTRODUCTION
Celiac disease (CD) is an immune-mediated enteropathy, triggered by ingestion of gluten-containing grains in genetically susceptible persons.[1] The prevalence of CD is estimated to be 1/300 to 1/500 in general population.[2] The prevalence of CD in Iran is reported to be 1/166 to 1/104.[3,4] CD may manifest with variety of symptoms and severities that may begin anytime during the life. Gastrointestinal symptoms may include diarrhea, abdominal pain, vomiting, bloating, anorexia, and even constipation.[5] The classic presentation of severe malabsorption syndrome with chronic diarrhea, steatorrhea, and weight loss, however, is less common in CD that is known as the “iceberg” condition.[6,7] The variation in clinical presentation is a major challenge for early detection of CD.[8] Although CD is eminently treatable by the total lifelong gluten-free diet (GFD),[9]
there is often prolonged delay in diagnosis that may end up to serious complications such as intestinal malignancies.[10-12] Therefore, timely diagnosis of CD and strict dietary treatment is important and could prevent the development of serious complications,[9]
and decrease mortality in celiac patients.[13] Considering high proportions of CD patients with nonspecific gastrointestinal symptoms, routine screening of patients
with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), etc. is still a debate.
IBD is comprised of two major diseases: ulcerative colitis (UC) and Crohn’s disease. UC affects the colon, whereas Crohn’s disease can involve any component of the gastrointestinal tract from the oral cavity to the anus.[14] In the case of IBD, there is also an overlap between symptoms of CD and IBD that could result in misdiagnosis and delayed diagnosis of CD.
Several case reports and case series have suggested an association between CD and IBD,[15-20] most frequently
UC.[21-26] However, the true prevalence of CD in IBD
patient’s and so the value of the routine serological tests for CD in these patients is not clear yet.[27-29]
In this study, we aimed to determine the prevalence of CD in patients with IBD and to evaluate the value of the routine serological tests for CD in these patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This cross-sectional study was carried out in Poursina Hakim Research Institute, Isfahan, Iran during 2008 –
Address for correspondence: Mr. Hamid Tavakkoli, Associate professor of medicine, Gastroenterology department, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran. E-mail: h_tavakoli@med.mui.ac.ir
Received: 10.01.2011 Revised: 12.01.2011; Accepted: 06.01.2012
2010. Patients with IBD, who were registered in Poursina Hakim Research Institute Database, were invited to participate in this study after controlling the inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Inclusion criteria Patients with the diagnosis of IBD according to Leonard Jones criteria[30] and those with no history of gastroduodenectomy or other upper- gastrointestinal operations were included in the study.
Exclusion criteria Patients who did not follow the protocol of study or did the serologic tests in laboratories other than those determined in the study guide were excluded from the study.
Patients with IBD who accepted to participate undergone the screening test for CD. The test was based on IgA anti- tTG antibody through an ELISA method using an E. coli- expressed human recombinant tTG as the coating antigen and IgA EMA by the indirect immunofluorescence method on monkey esophagus sections.
Total serum IgA was measured in patients with a tTG- Ab titer of zero and negative EMA results to exclude IgA deficiency as a cause of false-negative EMA and tTG-Ab results. Participants with positive antibodies for each test or IgA deficiency were considered to undergo D2 biopsies to confirm the possibility of CD after receiving informed consent. Four biopsy specimens were taken from the second part of duodenum with standard forceps. The biopsies were read by an expert histopathologist who was blinded to the serological results. Histopathological findings were expressed according to the revised Marsh classification.[31]
Normal mucosa with less than 30 intraepithelial lymphocytes per 100 epithelial cells was defined as the Marsh type 0;
normal mucosa with more than 30 lymphocytes per 100 epithelial cells was defined as Marsh type I, infiltrative/
hyperplastic lesions as Marsh II, and villous atrophy (VA) as type III. The Marsh III lesions were further subdivided into partial VA (Marsh IIIa), subtotal VA (Marsh IIIb), and total VA (Marsh IIIc).[32]
HLA-DQ2 and DQ8 determination that is strictly associated with CD[33] was performed on patients with negative EMA in accompany with the pathology less than marsh IIIa because increased numbers of intraepithelial lymphocytes are found not only in CD, but also in other medical conditions.[34] In cases with “positive tTG followed by positive EMA” or
“positive tTG followed by marsh higher than II in those with negative EMA” CD was considered as the appropriate diagnosis.
Statistical analysis
T test, chi square, and Fisher ’s exact tests were used for
data analysis and P-values less than 0.05 were considered significant. Data were analyzed using SPSS 15.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) software.
RESULTS
This cross-sectional study consisted of 100 patients, with a mean age of 34.74 ± 12.03 (SD) years. The frequency distributions of clinical characteristics of the patients are given in [Table 1]. Of 100 patients examined, 17 (17%) had IgA antitTG antibody levels above the cutoff point[20] that consisted of 12 UC and 5 Crohn’s disease patients. Thirty- two patients were positive for IgA EMA that consisted of 22 UC and 10 Crohn’s disease patients. IgA EMA was positive in nine IgA anti-tTG positive patients (three patients with Crohn’s disease and six ones with UC); the other eight anti-tTG positive patients were all negative for IgA EMA [Table 2]. Correlation of qualitative variables by chi-square test demonstrated a significant correlation between the results of IgA EMA and those of IgA anti-tTG (P=0.005). Phi and Cramer ’s V correlation coefficient was 0.28.
All eight anti-tTG positive patients who were negative for IgA EMA were invited for duodenal biopsy. Only one patient accepted to undergo endoscopy who had no histological findings compatible with a diagnosis of celiac disease. IgA deficiency was identified in four patients (4%) and all had negative serology for celiac disease. The prevalence of serologic celiac disease was 9.5% and 10%
in patients with ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease, respectively [Table 3]. Fisher exact test revealed significant difference between frequency distribution of positive and negative results of laboratory tests in patients with IBD.
Comparing IgA anti-tTG antibody levels between the two groups of patients who were positive and negative for IgA EMA was done. Comparison of mean IgA anti-tTG antibody levels between positive and negative IgA EMA patients by t test showed a significant difference (33.44± 14.21 versus 9.92± 1.6, respectively, P=0.015).
Disease activity
The criteria of ulcerative colitis activity index (UCAI)[19] was used to monitor the severity of disease in ulcerative colitis patients whereas simplified Crohn’s disease activity index (SCDAI)[20] was applied in Crohn’s disease patients. Crohn’s disease activity index was defined as following: score =
<50, remission; 150–250, mild disease activity; 250–400, moderate disease activity and >400, severe disease activity. Two patients had moderate disease activity, seven had mild disease activity, and 14 patients were in remission.
Spearman correlation showed no significant relationship between the severity of disease in ulcerative colitis and
Table 1. Clinical and demographic characteristics of IBD patients
Mean Age 34.74 ± 12.03 (SD) (%)
Gender
Female 42 (42)
Male 58 (58)
Disease type
Ulcerative Colitis 70 (70)
Crohn’s disease 30 (30)
Disease activity
Ulcerative Colitis according to UCAI 3.46 ± 0.96 (SD) Crohn’s disease according to SCDAI 90 ± 17 (SD)
IgA deficiency 4 (4)
Duration of disease (months) 42.97 ± 36.36
Table 2. Correlation of distribution of qualitative variables (IgA EMA and IgA anti-tTG) by chi-square test
IgA EMA
Positive (%) Negative (%) Total (%) IgA anti-tTG Ab Positive 9 (9) 8 (8) 17 (17)
Negative 23 (23) 60 (60) 83 (83) Cramer's V = 0.28Total 31 (31) 68 (68) P=0.005 EMA: Endomysial antibody
Table 3. Frequency distribution of patients according to the kind of IBD and EMA and IgA anti-tTG Ab results
IBD
Total
Ulcerative colitis
Crohn’s disease EMA+TT
G
Negative, either or both 64
27 91
Both positive 6
3 9
Total 70
30
EMA: Endomysial antibody; IBD: Inflammatory bowel disease
Crohn’s disease with IgA anti-tTG antibody levels and IgA EMA (P>0.05).
The patients who had serological findings compatible with a diagnosis of celiac disease according to our criteria and they did not complain of gastrointestinal symptoms.
DISCUSSION
We found 17 anti-tTG positive cases in 100 patients, but only nine were EMA positive, a serologic celiac disease prevalence of 9%, showing about ten times higher prevalence of serologic celiac disease in IBD patients compared with the general population in Iran. Reported prevalence of celiac disease in IBD patients varied from 0.3% to 14%.[35-37] In Iran, the prevalence of serologic CD in general population has been reported to be 0.6–0.96%.[3,4,7] There are considerable literatures supporting an association between celiac disease and IBD. In 1965, Salem and Truelove[38] showed that 20% of patients with UC had villous atrophy in duodenal biopsies.
Studies from the United Kingdom[18] Sweden,[19] and the United States[39] have reported an increased prevalence
of UC and Crohn’s disease in patients with celiac disease.
These studies had shown a two to tenfold increase in the incidence of patients with both IBD and celiac disease than would be expected by chance.[18,19] In our study, the prevalence of celiac disease was not completely confirmed because of lack of duodenal biopsy.
Other studies described moderate increase in antitissue transglutaminase antibodies in a number of autoimmune diseases, which is not always a marker of underlying celiac disease. False positive antitissue transglutaminase antibodies may be a phenomenon of autoimmunity.[30]
In addition, tissue transglutaminase is overexpressed in apoptotic tissue and is, therefore, a phenomenon related to mucosal lesions. Mucosal barrier defects are well described, such as increased tight junction permeability in both celiac disease[40,41] and IBD.[42] Increased intestinal permeability may lead to increased antigen presentation and therefore, generation of autoantibodies or increased bacterial translocation, which has been implicated in IBD as a pathogenic mechanism.
Leeds et al. corroborated this view in that 16/354 (4.5%) patients had positive antitissue transglutaminase antibodies and negative EMAs but only one patient was found to have celiac disease on biopsy.[43] In Di Tola et al. study, low- positive values of antitissue transglutaminase antibodies were detectable in 22 out of 45 Celiac Sprue (49%), 32 out of 49 Crohn’s Disease (65%), 20 out of 29 Ulcerative Colitis (69%), and 1 out of 27 MS patients (4%).[44] Positive anti-tTG results have been reported in patients affected by other disorders, such as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD),[35,45]
suggesting a loss of specificity for these antibodies in celiac.
The standard test uses IgA endomysial antibody (EMA).
This is based on its very high specificity, which approaches 100%. Overall, the sensitivity of the EMA is excellent with the majority of reports indicating greater than 90%
sensitivity,[46] although it is more expensive and more observer dependent than the IgA anti-tTG test.
The Di Tola et al. study has been suggested that antitissue transglutaminase antibodies correlate to the disease activity,[44] although in our study there was no relationship between the activity of disease and IgA anti-tissue transglutaminase antibodies and IgA EMAs, which could be due to the small sample size.
In our study, there were no significant deference between ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease in patients with serologic celiac disease although most of our patients had ulcerative colitis. Our experience did not confirm Snook et al. report of celiac disease being associated more frequently with ulcerative colitis than with Crohn’s disease.[47]
CONCLUSION
Our study identified a higher prevalence of serologic celiac disease in IBD patients than in the population at large, although not performing endoscopy in positive serologic patients and small sample size challenged our findings and further studies are needed to clarify whether or not there is an association between IBD and celiac disease.
REFERENCE
1. Farrell RJ, Kelly CP. Celiac sprue. N Engl J Med 2002;346:180-8.
2. Fasano A. Where have all the American celiacs gone? Acta Paediatr Suppl 1996;412:20-4.
3. Akbari MR, Mohammadkhani A, Fakheri H, Javad ZM, Shahbazkhani B, Nouraie M, et al. Screening of the adult population in Iran for coeliac disease: Comparison of the tissue- transglutaminase antibody and anti-endomysial antibody tests.
Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006;18:1181-6.
4. Shahbazkhani B, Malekzadeh R, Sotoudeh M, Moghadam KF, Farhadi M, Ansari R, et al. High prevalence of coeliac disease in apparently healthy Iranian blood donors. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2003;15:475-8.
5. Green PH. The many faces of celiac disease: Clinical presentation of celiac disease in the adult population. Gastroenterology 2005;128 (4 Suppl 1):S74-8.
6. Rampertab SD, Pooran N, Brar P, Singh P, Green PH. Trends in the presentation of celiac disease. Am J Med 2006;119:355-14.
7. Rostami K, Malekzadeh R, Shahbazkhani B, Akbari MR, Catassi C. Coeliac disease in Middle Eastern countries: A challenge for the evolutionary history of this complex disorder? Dig Liver Dis 2004;36:694-7.
8. NIH Consensus Development Conference on Celiac Disease. June 28-30, 2004. Available from: http://www.consensus.nih.gov/2004/2 004CeliacDisease118html.htm. [Last cited on 2007 Mar 01].
9. Fasano A, Catassi C. Current approaches to diagnosis and treatment of celiac disease: An evolving spectrum. Gastroenterology 2001;120:636-51.
10. Corazza GR, Brusco G, Andreani ML, Biagi F, Stefano MD, Gasbarrini G. Previous misdiagnosis and diagnostic delay in adult celiac sprue. J Clin Gastroenterol 1996;22:324-5.
11. Holmes GK, Prior P, Lane MR, Pope D, Allan RN. Malignancy in coeliac disease-effect of a gluten free diet. Gut 1989;30:333-8.
12. Silano M, De Vincenzi M. Risk of gastrointestinal non-Hodgkin's lymphoma at diagnosis of celiac disease. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2005;20:657.
13. Viljamaa M, Kaukinen K, Pukkala E, Hervonen K, Reunala T, Collin P. Malignancies and mortality in patients with coeliac disease and dermatitis herpetiformis: 30-year population-based study. Dig Liver Dis 2006;38:374-80.
14. Higuchi LM, Bousvaros A. Epidemiology and diagnosis of inflammatory bowel disease in children and adolescents. In:
UpToDate, Rose BD, editor, UpToDate , Waltham, MA: 2007.
15. Shah A, Mayberry JF, Williams G, Holt P, Loft DE, Rhodes J.
Epidemiological survey of coeliac disease and inflammatory bowel disease in first-degree relatives of coeliac patients. Q J Med 1990;74:283-8.
16. Bulger K, Griffin M, Dervan P, Lennon J, Crowe J. Coeliac disease in association with inflammatory bowel disease. Postgrad Med J 1988;64:336.
17. Kitis G, Holmes GK, Cooper BT, Thompson H, Allan RN.
Association of coeliac disease and inflammatory bowel disease.
Gut 1980;21:636-41.
18. Gillberg R, Dotevall G, Ahren C. Chronic inflammatory bowel disease in patients with coeliac disease. Scand J Gastroenterol 1982;17:491-6.
19. Euler AR, Ament ME. Celiac sprue and Crohn's disease: An association causing severe growth retardation. Gastroenterology 1977;72:729-31.
20. Kumar PJ, O'Donoghue DP, Gibson J, Stansfeld A, Dawson AM.
The existence of inflammatory bowel lesions in gluten-sensitive enteropathy. Postgrad Med J 1979;55:753-6.
21. Breen EG, Coughlan G, Connolly CE, Stevens FM, McCarthy CF.
Coeliac proctitis. Scand J Gastroenterol 1987;22:471-7.
22. Breen EG, Coghlan G, Connolly EC, Stevens FM, McCarthy CF.
Increased association of ulcerative colitis and coeliac disease. Ir J Med Sci 1987;156:120-1.
23. Mayberry JF, Smart HL, Toghill PJ. Familial association between coeliac disease and ulcerative colitis: Preliminary communication.
J R Soc Med 1986;79:204-5.
24. Falchuk KR, Falchuk ZM. Selective immunoglobulin a deficiency, ulcerative colitis, and gluten-sensitive enteropathy--a unique association. Gastroenterology 1975;69:503-6.
25. Sood A, Midha V, Sood N, Avasthi G, Kaushal V. Coexistence of celiac disease and ulcerative colitis. Indian J Gastroenterol 2001;20:200-1.
26. Habior A, Rawa T, Orlowska J, Sankowska M, Lewartowska A, Tilszer A, et al. Association of primary sclerosing cholangitis, ulcerative colitis and coeliac disease in female siblings. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2002;14:787-91.
27. Yang A, Chen Y, Scherl E, Neugut AI, Bhagat G, Green PH.
Inflammatory bowel disease in patients with celiac disease.
Inflamm Bowel Dis 2005;11:528-32.
28. Tursi A, Giorgetti GM, Brandimarte G, Elisei W. High prevalence of celiac disease among patients affected by Crohn's disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 2005;11:662-6.
29. Bizzaro N, Villalta D, Tonutti E, Doria A, Tampoia M, Bassetti D, et al. IgA and IgG tissue transglutaminase antibody prevalence and clinical significance in connective tissue diseases, inflammatory bowel disease, and primary biliary cirrhosis. Dig Dis Sci 2003;48:2360-5.
30. Lennard-Jones JE. Classification of inflammatory bowel disease.
Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl 1989;170:2-6.
31. Marsh MN. Gluten, major histocompatibility complex, and the small intestine. A molecular and immunobiologic approach to the spectrum of gluten sensitivity ('celiac sprue'). Gastroenterology 1992;102:330-54.
32. Rostami K, Kerckhaert J, von Blomberg BM, Meijer JW, Wahab P, Mulder CJ. SAT and serology in adult coeliacs, seronegative coeliac disease seems a reality. Neth J Med 1998;53:15-9.
33. Sumnik Z, Kolouskova S, Cinek O, Kotalova R, Vavrinec J, Snajderova M. HLA-DQA1*05-DQB1*0201 positivity predisposes to coeliac disease in Czech diabetic children. Acta Paediatr 2000;89:1426-30.
34. Chang F, Mahadeva U, Deere H. Pathological and clinical significance of increased intraepithelial lymphocytes (IELs) in small bowel mucosa. APMIS 2005;113:385-99.
35. Farrace MG, Picarelli A, Di Tola M, Sabbatella L, Marchione OP, Ippolito G, et al. Presence of anti-‘‘tissue’’ transglutaminase antibodies in inflammatory intestinal diseases: An apoptosis- associated event? Cell Death Differ 2001;8:767-70.
36. Kull K, Uibo O, Salupere R, Metsku¨ la K, Uibo R. High frequency of antigliadin antibodies and absence of antireticulin and antiendomysium antibodies in patients with ulcerative colitis. J Gastroenterol 1999;34:61-5.
37. Tursi A, Giorgetti GM, Brandimarte G, Elisei W. High prevalence of coeliac disease among patients affected by Crohn’s disease.
Inflamm Bowel Dis 2005;11:662-6.
38. Salem SN, Truelove SC. Small intestinal and gastric abnormalities in ulcerative colitis. Br Med J 1965;5438:827-31.
39. Delco F, El-Serag HB, Sonnenberg A. Celiac sprue among US military veterans: Associated disorders and clinical manifestations.
Dig Dis Sci 1999; 44:966-72.
40. Drago S, El Asmar R, Di Pierro M, Grazia Clemente M, Tripathi A, Sapone A, et al. Gliadin, zonulin and gut permeability: Effects on coeliac and non-coeliac intestinal mucosa and intestinal cell lines.
Scand J Gastroenterol 2006;41:408-19.
41. Kohout P. Small bowel permeability in diagnosis of celiac disease and monitoring of compliance of a gluten-free diet (gut permeability in coeliac disease). Acta Medica 2001;44:101-4.
42. Söderholm JD, Olaison G, Peterson KH, Franzén LE, Lindmark T, Wirén M, et al. Augmented increase in tight junction permeability by luminal stimuli in the non-inflamed ileum of Crohn’s disease.
Gut 2002;50:307-13.
43. Leeds JS, Horoldt BS, Sidhu R, Hopper AD, Robinson K, Toulson B, et al. Is there an association between coeliac disease and inflammatory bowel diseases? A study of relative prevalence in comparison with population controls. Scand J Gastroenterol
2007;42:1214-20.
44. Di Tola M, Sabbatella L, Anania MC, Viscido A, Caprilli R, Pica R, et al. Anti-tissue transglutaminase antibodies in inflammatory bowel disease: New evidence. Clin Chem Lab Med 2004;42:1092-7.
45. Koop I, Ilchmann R, Izzi L, Adragna A, Koop H, Barthelmes H.
Detection of autoantibodies against tissue transglutaminase in patients with celiac disease and dermatitis herpetiformis. Am J Gastroenterol 2000;95:2009-14.
46. Rostom A, Dube C, Cranney A, Saloojee N, Sy R, Garritty C, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of serologic tests for celiac disease: A systematic review. Gastroenterology 2005;128 (4 Suppl 1):S38-46.
47. Snook JA, De Silva HJ, Jewell DP. The association of autoimmune disorder with Inflammatory bowel disease. Q J Med 1989;72:835-40.
How to cite this article: Tavakkoli H, Haghdani S, Adilipour H, Daghaghzadeh H, Minakari M, Adibi P, et al. Serologic celiac disease in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. J Res Med Sci 2012; 17(2): 154-8.
Source of Support: Nil, Conflict of Interest: None declared.
